kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Thats is what CSCC is trying to do with this years, make it hard to say no so they get lots more fast cars. Yes, a large field looks fun. And they did have fun. BUT, Conference is about Conference.
The clubs need participation but winners want to win. It appears that our points system awards participation and not winning. This is similar to AYSO Soccer or Youth Softball. Where's the happy medium?
I see that and I'm all for awarding participation but I don't like it.
Lance, allow me a "what if scenario":
Imagine you and I are both millionaires and money is no issue the only thing that is a restriction in our lives is TIME. We both run PRO3. Say you had 5 Wins and I only had 1 but you had some "business" that kept you from attending 2 races and because of this I took 1st place in the championship even though you had 4 more wins. How would you view the significance or importance of the Championship?
Lance said:There are NASCAR Cup champions that didn't win a single race in their championship year. Are they not worthy champions? Some will put an asterik on their name.
Quoted for truth.Winning a championship should be hard because winning is hard, towing is not. Towing is a waste of money that's a by-product of what we do and what we do is racing.
Colin,
Not wanting to hijack, but I wonder how many double-points weekends we will have this year? Spokane, ORP (reverse)??
Dan
#102
I would like to add the following to this unofficial survey:
3. The current points structure seems adequate to me. Winning 6 races and not finishing the other 4 you enter is analogous to winning the first 8 hours of a 12 hour enduro and then dropping out.
I also don't want there to be increased incentive to make riskier moves due to a greater delta between 1st and 2nd place points.
If I were to do anything with the points system it would be to increase the number of points awarded based on the number entrants in the class. To me winning a race with 15 cars in class is a much more notable achievement than winning a race with 5 cars in class.
I am thankful that CSCC has given us the opportunity to compete in such an event and I understand why they cannot continue to do that.
I don't think that's a fair analogy. The enduro as an analogy would only work if in that said enduro a car was not require to finish the race but instead "total laps run" was recorded and counted.
Hopefully I'll have a car that will make that possible. 85hp ITA Civics don't work too well, an Integra would be way better. Winning itself is motivation to challenge the car ahead, I think that will always be the case regardless of how many points are possible.The current point system inspires the opposite. With only a 2 or 3 point delta it means that I have NO "point" motivation to challenge the car in front of me. But I will always race you aggressively Roldan, don't you worry!
There are typically multiple causes to a given incident, the larger delta would likely become a contributing factor especially when first implemented.I am curious about this as a safety issue but I can't image a larger delta would cause any of us to lose our minds and behave any worse than we already do or don't on track.
I was thinking more along the lines of within the same class where there are very few entries at some events. I think both of these issues go away if you compete in a well subscribed class. Maybe we should just make our class better subscribed.That's philosophically no different then someone thinking the award for getting 1st place should be greater regardless of number of cars. You don't think winning 1st place should be awarded with a greater delta but you think people who win in a class with more cars should get more points?